The Government is expected to scrap their so-called boiler tax for “at least a year”, in an announcement coming as soon as next week.
Under the Clean Heat Market Mechanism, a fine of £3,000 [$3,802] was set to be levied against suppliers if they missed a target of selling one heat pump [pictured] for every 24 gas boilers. [emphasis, links added]
The scheme, which is meant to drive the take-up of heat pumps by four percent, was due to start in April, however, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is now expected to delay the start date by a year.
Claire Coutinho, the Energy Secretary, will not be proceeding with the policy, which would see the price of boilers increase by up to £120 [$152], the Telegraph has reported.
The plans, which had been criticized as a form of “Government coercion”, have now been watered down and will no longer come into effect from April.
The 2024-2025 year will now be seen as a “monitoring year” where the Government tracks sales of heat pumps in relation to boilers.
The move is likely to come as good news to Conservative MPs, who had slammed the scheme.
Lord David Frost said: “Good news if confirmed. A very sensible stop on a wholly irrational policy. Well done to Claire Coutinho for sticking to her guns and facing down the opposition.”
Craig Mackinlay, the chair of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group of Tory MPs, wrote to Coutinho in February urging her to “trust your instincts and scrap this harmful policy“, branding the scheme “Government coercion”.
“Consumer choice has to be at the heart of a Conservative, free-market approach to Net Zero,” he said.
He claimed that “the targets and central planning inherent in the Clean Heat Market Mechanism” come “straight from the failed socialist playbook of the past.”
“It was the right decision to review this policy,” he said.
“We know that there are many siren voices encouraging you to impose the boiler tax. You must resist them and show the public you are on their side.” …
In December, Katherine McBryan, a fellow at the Centre for Brexit Policy spoke to Martin Daubney on GB News about the tax.
She said: “It is crazy, I don’t know where the Government thinks companies get their money from but their only pool of money is their customers.
“To fine them for not selling a product, which quite frankly people do not want, is ridiculous.”
h/t NZW
Read full post at GB News
Kerry the Scary needs all his Air Conditioners taken away
Eveytime I look at news here I think about how invest on the correct markets. For me it just makes sense that food,energy and commodities in general will become more expensive. But I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic as I am 24 and just started on this. Anybody know resources with this kind of mentality? If you google anything it will always give the popular answers(pro-climate stuff)
Email sent to Craig Mackinlay, the chair of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group.
It starts with:
––––––––––––––-*-
Greetings, Craig.
Contained herein is the knowledge required to utterly destroy CAGW and all of its offshoots (net zero, carbon capture and sequestration, ‘renewable’ energy as replacement for fossil-fueled baseload electrical generation, carbon credit trading, etc.).
The entirety of CAGW is, at its base, predicated upon a mathematical artifact brought about via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Thus, the underlying premise is incorrect. Little wonder, then, that the climate catastrophists seem to be diametrically opposite to empirical reality so reliably.
––––––––––––––-*-
If anyone wants that paper, it’s here:
https://ufile.io/gb1xn4lh
Once the reality of the situation sets in for them, I predict that we’re going to see the climate catastrophists sink into such a funk that we’ve never seen… every single bit of the house-of-cards idiocy they’ve built (CAGW, net zero, carbon capture and sequestration, carbon credit trading, the restriction of people’s lives and livelihoods to ‘save the planet’ from CO2, etc.) are based at its foundation upon a mathematical artifact due to misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation by the climastrologists.
It would not surprise me if they, in their twisted minds, find themselves compelled to assume room temperature in protest. They are more often diametrically opposite to reality than not… that the proper interpretation of the fundamental physical laws and the proper application of the S-B equation shows that CO2 is not a threat constitutes a threat to the climate catastrophists of greater magnitude than that they supposed CO2 to constitute. LOL